You have the right to be secure in your person, your home and your effects. You have the right to expect no unreasonable searches and seizures. You have the right to move about freely without harassment or suspicion-less detention. This subreddit is dedicated to the upholding and exercising of these rights.

Please keep posts inside the following guidelines:

Examples of police officers or other government agents overstepping or attempting to overstep their lawful authority to detain or arrest.

Don't Talk to Police - Watch a former cop explain why there is no benefit to speaking to a police officer.

Terry Stops - The Supreme Court precedent which clarifies the ability of police to detain a person for investigation.

Stop and Identify Statutes - Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada was a case which followed Terry v. Ohio. It recognized the legitimacy of "Stop and Identify" statutes, but with the prerequisite that the stop was a legitimate "Terry Stop" based upon "reasonable articulable suspicion". Hiibel does not authorize police to demand ID without cause.

Probable Cause - This is the standard which is required for an arrest, warrant, criminal charge or a search which goes above and beyond an officer safety pat-down.

Above all else, remember this when dealing with police:

Police are not required to explain themselves or their actions to you or any other person they detain or arrest. A failure to explain their actions to a citizen, either out of malice or ignorance, does not mean a lawful order can be ignored. They are only required to justify their actions in criminal and/or civil court. Do not mistake a lack of explanation for a lack of grounds. Only refuse to identify yourself if you are absolutely certain you stand on solid legal ground.

Do not attempt to stand up to police officers if you aren't equipped with enough knowledge to make a safe determination of what you're legally required to do and are prepared to endure a false arrest and charges. Any and all resistance must be passive. Never physically resist an officer (exceptions for extraordinarily extra-legal actions notwithstanding). If your rights are violated, seeking compensation will be hampered by any "bad" behavior on your part. Don't make your lawyer's job harder than it has to be.

At approximately 12:30am on Saturday, September 14th 2013 I was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint located near the intersection of Beverly Blvd and North Vermont Ave in Los Angeles, CA. The officer who contacted me for the purposes of the sobriety checkpoint eventually identified himself to me as M. Garza of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), badge number 27688. Upon noticing that I was going to pass through a sobriety checkpoint, I used the record function on my cell phone to record the encounter as is typical for me when I am forced to interact with law enforcement officers against my will.

Upon being contacted by Officer Garza, he asked me to roll down my window and present him with my California Driver's License. I asked him if this was an order, as I typically invoke my rights under the California and United States Constitutions when interacting with law enforcement officers. Officer Garza confirmed that he was indeed ordering me to roll down my window and present him with identification. I complied with these orders and presented him with my valid California Driver's License.

At this point, Officer Garza inquired as to why I asked him if his requests were orders. I informed him that I do not answer questions. Officer Garza then asked me if I would admit to drinking - a question whose answer inherently requires one to admit to drinking (and thus incriminate oneself) unless one were to refuse to answer the question completely. Since I wanted to protect my rights I refused to answer Officer Garza's question.

Subsequent to my refusal to answer his question Officer Garza ordered me to place my vehicle in park and to step out of the car. I then informed Officer Garza that I did not consent to any entrance or search of my vehicle. Officer Garza responded that I didn't have the option to consent to anything. Officers of the LAPD then entered my car, took possession of it, searched it, and moved it to another location without my permission. Since I clearly witheld consent for these actions, officers of the LAPD either had probable cause to conduct a search or committed numerous violations of my rights pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the California State Constitution.

At this point another officer entered my vehicle. My cell phone recorded the following conversation, presumably between two officers of the LAPD:

Officer 1: "Sarge? This guy was already an ass."

Officer 2: “Good”

Officer 1: “He said, ‘I don’t consent to any search of my vehicle.’ I said, ‘All that means is I’m going to search your vehicle because you just gave me the cause.’”

At this point one of the officers stopped my cell phone from recording (again, without my consent), but the conversation above heavily implies that it is the custom and practice of the LAPD to treat an assertion of rights as cause to a search- something that the courts have disagreed with numerous times.

Meanwhile, Officer Garza had placed me in handcuffs and informed me that I was being detained. He refused to articulate the specific probable cause for my detainment. I refused numerous field sobriety tests and told Officer Garza that I would submit to a breathalyzer test, but that I would refuse any sobriety tests that invited his subjective judgment as to my sobriety. Despite my repeated statements that I did not consent to a search, Officer Garza invasively searched and touched me without my permission in a manner that exceeded his authority under Terry v. Ohio.

Officer Garza then told me that I would be formally arrested if I continued to assert my rights. Although I was convinced that the arrest would be groundless, I complied in the interest of avoiding arrest. I established my sobriety to Officer Garza’s satisfaction. Officer Garza did however fill out what appeared to be a Field Interrogation report of the interaction.

The handcuffs were then removed and my keys were returned to me. However, the officers had parked my car in a red zone and surrounded it with cones, which was another factor in what was clearly a seizure. In summary, I am making the following complaints regarding the above incident:

Lacking probable cause, the LAPD illegally performed a search and seizure upon my vehicle.

Lacking probably case, the LAPD illegally performed a search of my person beyond the scope permitted under Terry v. Ohio.

The recording captured by my cell phone heavily implies that the LAPD treats assertion of rights as probable cause to search.

The officers in question behaved in a highly unprofessional manner by calling me “an ass” merely for asserting my rights.

The recording referenced in the above narrative is available upon request.

You probably have a case if your facts align with cell phone evidence and officer/witness testimony.

Misc notes, not terribly important...

Lacking probably case, the LAPD illegally performed a search of my person beyond the scope permitted

Should be "probable cause" however I don't often assert "lack of probable cause" in complaints, that is a statement or assertion. Not terrible but an alternate could be something like: "based on the experience of the incident to this point I was not convinced that the LAPD could articulate to a Court reasonable suspicion that I had/was/would commit a crime."

The point is to never assert a position, in informal complaints or formal motions.

At approximately 12:30am on Saturday, September 14th 2013

This is an assertion which you are safe in including if it will likely match your evidence and officer/witness evidence. Nothing wrong with this type of assertion however I would format differently if I was assisting your matter. Something like: "On 14 September 2013 0030 I was stopped at a sobriety checkpoint..."

No problem with assertions when you KNOW you are right or will be proven right by your evidence or officer/witness testimony. The previous assertion of "Lacking probably case, the LAPD illegally..." you cannot be certain you were right. It is your belief and likely you are correct. However, random assertions without evidence are meaningless and not considered in a complaint/case.

Now, a couple things that I advise my clients alternate to what you did:

First

Upon being contacted by Officer Garza, he asked me to roll down my window and present him with my California Driver's License. I asked him if this was an order,

If it was clear it was a sobriety checkpoint I advise my clients to persist with: "I don't understand how giving you my CDL will help you do your job to determine whether I am sober or not". And you will be argued with and the officer WILL stumble because all they want is the CDL. But I advise to persist with that and if ordered (see below), comply with it.

Second,

I asked him if this was an order, as I typically invoke my rights under the California and United States Constitutions

I always advise never to bring up constitutions, statutes or law at a traffic stop. Let him hang himself and GET EVIDENCE OF IT!!! Sure, 90%+ of the time you will be more educated than the officer but is your pride more precious than your freedom or loss of a case?

I always advise my clients very simply that there is one goal for you in this case and please beat it into your head. Get the officer to admit that he will use violence and/or force against you if you do not obey his "orders".

I advise to get evidence on YOUR device (it won't show up on PD report) of the officer ordering you to do "X" and you clarifying that you do not want to do "X" but if the officer (anyone) intends to use violence, force, physical harm to force you do do "X", then you agree to do "X" to avoid such harm and offense.

The point is to put the assertion and/or order in their lap and make them say they will do "X". If you don't want to do "X" and they force you that makes for a good case if they did not have lawful reason to force you.

Let me know if you want to chat more about this as I have had several similar cases land in my lap over the last few months and I am picking and choosing which to pro bono on. I have 14 pro bono cases at the moment so I can't handle much more but there are similarities of your case for others that I am working on. So send me a message if you wish. I am in CA, but not LA.

And just to clarify, I didn't get into case law or statutes on the scene. I just asked him if his requests were orders and that I don't answer questions or take sobriety tests. I only referenced those in the written complaint to the Police Commission.

Yeah, we just removed the email address. If you like to send someone a private message, click on their name and then on the right hand area of their profile, there should be something that says "Send Message". Probably best to not share personal emails on this thing unless you're glutton for spammers.

No. Noboby wants to represent a whiny entitled pain in the ass like you people. You think you're all sooooo important that cops are just out to arrest you and violate your rights. None of you seem to have any idea what the job of a police officer is. You just believe they are there to violate your constitutional rights. I always love watching videos of people like you who end of getting their asses beat by the heroes in blue.

Again, everyone who doesn't agree with you is a "troll". All idiots like you do is attack any person who doesn't share your opinion. Cool. It must be fun to have a comment section where no one is allowed to debate you. Maybe you're the troll? Think about that.

A question I've always wondered about for traffic stops, I know everyone does it already for 'normal' interactions with LEOs, but I wasn't sure why we had to say it. Do you HAVE to tell them you're "audio/video recording" or more specifically do you have to tell them in a traffic stop. I've seen videos where people don't say it for traffic stops, but I'm not sure if that's because it's obvious or if they just don't have to.

They (outrageously) try to hang people with wiretap laws for recording without permission, but NY is a one party consent state, which means that as long as at least one person in the conversation (you!) consents to it being recorded, it's fine.

This is an absolutely horrible idea, when you sue, you fucking sue for real, not some small claims bullshit for a quick buck, and when you sue in big boy court you don't take a settlement, settlements make the matter disappear as far as the municipality is concerned, there are no further repercussions and the same department is then free to go on abusing their power and infringing on people's rights again. Press the issue and refuse settlement, if you have a solid case (and a decent lawyer) you stand the chance of setting legal precedence and actually making a difference for people in future encounters, this is about constitutional rights, not winning the douche bag cop lottery for a couple thousand dollars.

The officer who contacted me for the purposes of the sobriety checkpoint eventually identified himself to me

This is subjective, be objective. How many time did you ask him to identify himself before he finally did.

Upon noticing that I was going to pass through a sobriety checkpoint, I used the record function on my cell phone to record the encounter

You don't have to go through a sobriety checkpoint.

as is typical for me when I am forced to interact with law enforcement officers against my will.

Remove "against my will."

Upon being contacted by Officer Garza, he asked me to roll down my window and present him with my California Driver's License. I asked him if this was an order, as I typically invoke my rights under the California and United States Constitutions when interacting with law enforcement officers. Officer Garza confirmed that he was indeed ordering me to roll down my window and present him with identification. I complied with these orders and presented him with my valid California Driver's License.

Cite any local laws that demonstrate that this is unlawful, or delete the whole paragraph entirely.

At this point, Officer Garza inquired as to why I asked him if his requests were orders. I informed him that I do not answer questions. Officer Garza then asked me if I would admit to drinking - a question whose answer inherently requires one to admit to drinking (and thus incriminate oneself) unless one were to refuse to answer the question completely. Since I wanted to protect my rights I refused to answer Officer Garza's question.

Fine

Subsequent to my refusal to answer his question Officer Garza ordered me to place my vehicle in park and to step out of the car. I then informed Officer Garza that I did not consent to any entrance or search of my vehicle. Officer Garza responded that I didn't have the option to consent to anything. Officers of the LAPD then entered my car, took possession of it, searched it, and moved it to another location without my permission. Since I clearly witheld consent for these actions, officers of the LAPD either had probable cause to conduct a search or committed numerous violations of my rights pursuant to the 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the California State Constitution.

This is the crux of the complaint, they violated your 4th ammendment rights. Make sure your local sobriety checkpoint laws don't allow for this sort of thing.

At this point one of the officers stopped my cell phone from recording (again, without my consent),

This may or may not be illegal.

but the conversation above heavily implies that it is the custom and practice of the LAPD to treat an assertion of rights as cause to a search- something that the courts have disagreed with numerous times.

Sadly, you don't have evidence of this, but your documented complaint will be kept in records.

Meanwhile, Officer Garza had placed me in handcuffs and informed me that I was being detained. He refused to articulate the specific probable cause*** state the cause*** for my detainment. I refused numerous field sobriety tests and told Officer Garza that I would submit to a breathalyzer test, but that I would refuse any sobriety tests that invited his subjective judgment as to my sobriety. Despite my repeated statements that I did not consent to a search, Officer Garza invasively searched and touched me without my permission in a manner that exceeded his authority under Terry v. Ohio.

Everything here is going to be played off "That's your opinion", at least before a full on jury court case or lawyer affirming your subjective interpretation of the invents (with or without a video recording).

Keep it strictly to the facts, not your opinion or interpretation, unless you follow it up with "My attorney says ______"

However, the officers had parked my car in a red zone and surrounded it with cones, which was another factor in what was clearly a seizure.

They'll say

"K, but your opinion means shit to us. That wasn't a legal seizure even if you thought it was. Have a nice day"

A lot of police officers (and the general public) think that refusing to answer questions or submit to searches are things that only guilty people do.

This is the primary motivation behind why I always assert my rights whenever possible. I want the police to get used to the idea that just because someone doesn't feel like talking or consenting to a stranger going through their personal things doesn't mean they're a criminal.